Personalized decision-making for acute cholecystitis: Understanding surgeon judgment.

Background: There is sparse high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions for severe, acute cholecystitis (inflammation of the gallbladder). Therefore, treatment decisions depend heavily on individual surgeon judgment, which is highly variable and potentially amenable to personalized, data-driven decision support. We test the hypothesis that surgeons' treatment recommendations misalign with perceived risks and benefits for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (surgical removal) vs. percutaneous cholecystostomy (image-guided drainage). Methods: Surgery attendings, fellows, and residents applied individual judgement to standardized case scenarios in a live, web-based survey in estimating the quantitative risks and benefits of laparoscopic cholecystectomy vs. percutaneous cholecystostomy for both moderate and severe acute cholecystitis, as well as the likelihood that they would recommend cholecystectomy. Results: Surgeons predicted similar 30-day morbidity rates for laparoscopic cholecystectomy and percutaneous cholecystostomy. However, a greater proportion of surgeons predicted low (<50%) likelihood of full recovery following percutaneous cholecystostomy compared with cholecystectomy for both moderate (30% vs. 2%, Conclusions: Surgeon recommendations for severe cholecystitis were discordant with perceived risks and benefits of treatment options. Surgeons predicted greater functional recovery after cholecystectomy but less than one-third recommended cholecystectomy. These findings suggest opportunities to augment surgical decision-making with personalized, data-driven decision support.